Declaring crash reports are not motor vehicle records, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Morgan "Chip" Welch ruled Tuesday that the Arkansas State Police cannot deny bulk inspection of the reports.
After a law was passed last year requiring that personal information of minors be redacted from crash reports, state police implemented a new policy in January that no longer allowed bulk inspection of crash reports -- the examination of multiple reports at one time -- because redacting minors' information was an administrative burden.
In June the agency began withholding nearly all personal information from crash reports made available to the public, citing the 21-year-old federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
Little Rock attorney Daniel Wren sued the state police in May for access to the bulk reports after his request for the records under the Freedom of Information Act was denied.
Wren and his lawyer, M. Keith Wren, argued that the law did not allow blanket denial of access to crash reports. When the agency began citing the federal law to withhold all personal information except for the names of people killed in crashes, the Wrens amended the lawsuit to argue that the Drivers Privacy Protection Act did not apply.
In his written opinion, Welch agreed with the Wrens, who are brothers.
Crash reports are not motor vehicle records and therefore are not protected under the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, Welch wrote.
"The policy announced by ASP effective after January 1, 2015 relating to redactions of accident reports which is the subject of Plaintiff's complaint is declared to be violative of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and is hereby enjoined," Welch wrote.
Welch stayed his order for 60 days to allow the state to repeal, as requested by Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge. Lawyers from her office were representing state police in the case.
Daniel Wren said he was 99 percent happy with the judge's decision.
"This is exactly the ruling we had hoped and expected," Wren said. "Our only disappointment was that he stayed his order to give them time to appeal."
Bill Sadler, state police spokesman, referred all questions about the case to the attorney general's office.
Judd Deere, Rutledge spokesman, said in an email, "I am not in a position to offer comment at this time."
In the lawsuit, both sides agreed accident reports are public records, but the state argued the reports contain personal information that comes from motor vehicle records and should be shielded by the Drivers Privacy Protection Act. The act restricts disclosure of all personal information in driver records by motor vehicle departments.
The state argued in a hearing brief that because a driver in an accident hands a state trooper his license, the personal information came from motor vehicle records and should be protected by the federal law.
In Tuesday's opinion, Welch disagreed. He wrote that when Arkansas drivers on public highways are in accidents, they give troopers their licenses and registration information, meaning "the investigating officer receives initial basic personal information (or the consent to obtain it), not from the State, but from the original source-the licensed driver."
Welch also said the Arkansas State Police is not an agent of the motor vehicle department and therefore, "A motor vehicle accident report prepared by the Arkansas State Police is not a 'motor vehicle record' as defined by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act."
Welch also addressed Wren's argument that the redactions deprive the press and the public of information about car crashes.
Wren said during oral arguments that if a "William J. Clinton" is listed on an crash report the press would have no way of knowing if it was the former president or another Clinton living in Arkansas.
"The point, though somewhat fanciful, is well taken," Welch wrote.
Tom Larimer, head of the Arkansas Press Association, said the judge's ruling was a good outcome for members of the press in Arkansas who cover highway accidents in their communities.
"Well, it's obviously a good outcome for us," Larimer said. "I was confident it would go that way, but you just never know. We are happy with the outcome."
The press association had been contemplating legal action if the judge ruled in favor of state police. Larimer said Tuesday that he sees no need for legal action now as long as the judge's order is enforced.